Rozenman, 40, will appear in court on December 9 for a case management conference before Judge Hoffman. County Attorney spokesman Jerry Cobb told me that the C.A.'s office has moved that the judge reconsider her decision. He would not speculate as to what the CA's office would do if Hoffman declines the motion.

If she declines, according to defense attorneys I've spoken with, the C.A. could appeal her ruling on vacating the judgment, cut a deal with Rozenman, or go back to trial for round two. (Note: Please see update below.)

The issue at hand involves one of three recordings made of Rozenman's conversation with state witness Levi Nejar. Detectives in the case asserted to the court that there had been only two recordings made.

But there was another, a third, that was a of superior quality, referred to as the "Hawk" recording. What is said in the three recordings has been the subject of different claims by the prosecution and the defense.

In her 10-page minute entry on the matter, Hoffman concludes that, "Though it was inadvertent, material evidence was not disclosed."

She labels the Hawk recording Brady material, evidence that under law must be turned over to defense counsel.

Hoffman did not rule that this was "new" evidence, and insists that Rozenman "did not make any exculpatory statements" not contained on the other recordings.

"The court does not conclude that availability of the [third] recording would probably have altered the verdict at trial," Hoffman asserts.

Yet, she also states that the fact that the recording was not properly disclosed "undermines the court's confidence in the outcome of this trial." And she grants Ferragut's motion to vacate because of the Brady violation.

Based on Hoffman's minute entry, it seems Ferragut outwitted the prosecution, which was unaware of the third recording and insisted there were only two recordings involved. Hoffman reveals that the existence of the recording was indicated in a supplement to the Phoenix Police Department's report disclosed to the defense.

"In addition," writes Hoffman, "the [third] recording was made available to the defense attorney at the Phoenix Police Department Property Management Bureau...on January 7, 2010 when it was checked out on that date."

Despite this, the Phoenix PD asserted there were only two recordings, and based on this assertion, the prosecutor did likewise.

Ferragut has certainly earned his paycheck. He was the trial attorney for Rozenman, and presumably will be so again, if a new trial is the outcome of the legal wranglings involved.